KNOXVILLE - On September 3, 2026, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for its September docket in Knoxville, Tennessee. Oral arguments will take place at the Historic U.S. Post Office and Courthouse in Knoxville and be livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page (https://www.youtube.com/@TNCourts).

Beginning at 9:00 am EDT, the Court will hear the following case:

• Industrial Boiler & Mechanical Co., Inc. v. Tyler Andrew Evatt et al. – This case presents a question of how a plaintiff can dismiss part of a lawsuit and whether Tennessee law recognizes an independent tort of intentional first-party spoliation of evidence, which is the deliberate destruction, alteration, or concealment of relevant material by a party directly involved in a lawsuit when a legal dispute is already ongoing or reasonably anticipated. In 2022, Industrial Boiler & Mechanical (“the Plaintiff”) sued former employee Tyler Evatt and his new employer (“the Defendants”) on multiple claims, including the independent tort, stemming from a dispute over a non-compete agreement. The Defendants moved to dismiss the independent tort claim, arguing that Tennessee does not recognize this tort and instead addresses spoliation of evidence through sanctions under relevant discovery rules. The Hamilton County Chancery Court disagreed and denied the motion to dismiss. However, because the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed one of its other claims, the Defendants later moved to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety, arguing that the Plaintiff’s partial voluntary dismissal actually applied to all claims. The Hamilton County Chancery Court agreed and dismissed all claims. The Court of Appeals reversed on both issues, concluding that the trial court should not have dismissed the entire lawsuit but that the independent tort did not exist in Tennessee. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal to consider how a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss fewer than all claims against a defendant and whether Tennessee law recognizes the independent tort of first-party spoliation of evidence.

In addition, two cases will be submitted to the Court on the briefs:

• Christopher Todd Cain et al. v. Board of Professional Responsibility – This attorney disciplinary action against two lawyers, Christopher Cain and Wallace McDonald, arises from a complaint regarding a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed in Illinois. The complaint alleged that Messrs. Cain and McDonald (“the lawyers”) “fronted” for another attorney who served as counsel for an objector to the settlement, concealing their identities but arranging to share in any fees awarded. The complaint also alleged that Mr. Cain previously represented the class that had interests materially adverse to that of the objector and that the lawyers employed a non-lawyer to draft legal documents even though he had worked for an attorney representing the class. After a multi-day evidentiary hearing, a hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that the lawyers’ conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The hearing panel recommended a one-year suspension, with ninety days served on active suspension followed by probation. Upon judicial review, the Knox County Chancery Court affirmed the punishment. The matter is now before the Tennessee Supreme Court, which will consider multiple issues raised by both the lawyers and the Board of Professional Responsibility.

• Jedidiah Charles McKeehan v. Board of Professional Responsibility – This attorney disciplinary action stems from a debt-collection lawsuit gone awry. Deborah Flock retained Jedidiah McKeehan to collect money she had loaned to Randall Case. The parties mediated the lawsuit, resulting in Ms. Flock accepting a settlement involving a transfer of property owned by Mr. Case. Mr. McKeehan did not investigate whether Mr. Case had clear title to the property. Nevertheless, Mr. McKeehan dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice after Mr. Case conveyed the property via a quitclaim deed. Ms. Flock later learned that the property was encumbered. Ms. Flock attempted to contact Mr. McKeehan to resolve the situation, but Mr. McKeehan responded by terminating the attorney-client relationship and did not return Ms. Flock’s file. Ms. Flock filed a complaint against Mr. McKeehan, and a hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The panel imposed a thirty-day suspension. Upon judicial review, the Knox County Chancery Court affirmed the punishment. The matter is now before the Tennessee Supreme Court, which will consider issues raised by both Mr. McKeehan and the Board of Professional Responsibility.